On Sun, 12 Jan, at 11:05:46AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jan, at 01:30:23AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:21:48 PM Matt Fleming wrote:
> > > On Fri, 20 Dec, at 11:18:56PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure 100%, but I *think* we need to
On Sun, 12 Jan, at 11:05:46AM, Matt Fleming wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jan, at 01:30:23AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:21:48 PM Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec, at 11:18:56PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I'm not sure 100%, but I *think* we need to do that with
於 二，2014-01-14 於 13:32 -0700，Toshi Kani 提到：
> > > + acpi_early_init();
> > > timekeeping_init();
> > > time_init();
> > > sched_clock_postinit();
> > > @@ -641,7 +642,6 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
> > >
> > > check_bugs();
> > >
> > > -
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 10:00 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/13/2014 08:09 PM, joeyli wrote:
> >
> > This patch works to me on Acer Gateway Z5WT2 UEFI notebook and Intel
> > UEFI development board.
> >
> > Does it possible move acpi_early_init() to before timekeeping_init()?
> > The position
On 01/13/2014 08:09 PM, joeyli wrote:
>
> This patch works to me on Acer Gateway Z5WT2 UEFI notebook and Intel
> UEFI development board.
>
> Does it possible move acpi_early_init() to before timekeeping_init()?
> The position is also before efi_enter_virtual_mode() and that will be
> useful for
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:09:08 PM joeyli wrote:
> 於 日，2014-01-12 於 01:30 +0100，Rafael J. Wysocki 提到：
> > OK
> >
> > I don't see any adverse effects of the patch below on a couple of my
> > test
> > boxes, but (a) they are Intel-based and (b) they are non-EFI, so it
> > would be
> > good to
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 19:04 -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 10:06 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 01:30:23AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > I don't see any adverse effects of the patch below on a couple of my test
> > > boxes, but (a) they are
On Mon, 2014-01-13 at 19:04 -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 10:06 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 01:30:23AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I don't see any adverse effects of the patch below on a couple of my test
boxes, but (a) they are Intel-based
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 12:09:08 PM joeyli wrote:
於 日，2014-01-12 於 01:30 +0100，Rafael J. Wysocki 提到：
OK
I don't see any adverse effects of the patch below on a couple of my
test
boxes, but (a) they are Intel-based and (b) they are non-EFI, so it
would be
good to give it a go
On 01/13/2014 08:09 PM, joeyli wrote:
This patch works to me on Acer Gateway Z5WT2 UEFI notebook and Intel
UEFI development board.
Does it possible move acpi_early_init() to before timekeeping_init()?
The position is also before efi_enter_virtual_mode() and that will be
useful for parsing
On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 10:00 -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 01/13/2014 08:09 PM, joeyli wrote:
This patch works to me on Acer Gateway Z5WT2 UEFI notebook and Intel
UEFI development board.
Does it possible move acpi_early_init() to before timekeeping_init()?
The position is also
於 二，2014-01-14 於 13:32 -0700，Toshi Kani 提到：
+ acpi_early_init();
timekeeping_init();
time_init();
sched_clock_postinit();
@@ -641,7 +642,6 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
check_bugs();
- acpi_early_init(); /*
於 日，2014-01-12 於 01:30 +0100，Rafael J. Wysocki 提到：
> OK
>
> I don't see any adverse effects of the patch below on a couple of my
> test
> boxes, but (a) they are Intel-based and (b) they are non-EFI, so it
> would be
> good to give it a go on as many machines as reasonably possible.
>
> Thanks,
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 10:06 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 01:30:23AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > I don't see any adverse effects of the patch below on a couple of my test
> > boxes, but (a) they are Intel-based and (b) they are non-EFI, so it would be
> > good to
On Sun, 2014-01-12 at 10:06 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 01:30:23AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I don't see any adverse effects of the patch below on a couple of my test
boxes, but (a) they are Intel-based and (b) they are non-EFI, so it would be
good to give it
於 日，2014-01-12 於 01:30 +0100，Rafael J. Wysocki 提到：
OK
I don't see any adverse effects of the patch below on a couple of my
test
boxes, but (a) they are Intel-based and (b) they are non-EFI, so it
would be
good to give it a go on as many machines as reasonably possible.
Thanks,
Rafael
On Sun, 12 Jan, at 01:30:23AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:21:48 PM Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Dec, at 11:18:56PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > >
> > > I'm not sure 100%, but I *think* we need to do that with interrupts
> > > enabled.
> > > At least after
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 01:30:23AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> I don't see any adverse effects of the patch below on a couple of my test
> boxes, but (a) they are Intel-based and (b) they are non-EFI, so it would be
> good to give it a go on as many machines as reasonably possible.
>
>
On Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 01:30:23AM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I don't see any adverse effects of the patch below on a couple of my test
boxes, but (a) they are Intel-based and (b) they are non-EFI, so it would be
good to give it a go on as many machines as reasonably possible.
Thanks,
On Sun, 12 Jan, at 01:30:23AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:21:48 PM Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec, at 11:18:56PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I'm not sure 100%, but I *think* we need to do that with interrupts
enabled.
At least after mm_init(),
On Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:21:48 PM Matt Fleming wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Dec, at 11:18:56PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> > I'm not sure 100%, but I *think* we need to do that with interrupts enabled.
> > At least after mm_init(), because it relies on things initialized there if I
> >
On Saturday, December 21, 2013 12:21:48 PM Matt Fleming wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec, at 11:18:56PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
I'm not sure 100%, but I *think* we need to do that with interrupts enabled.
At least after mm_init(), because it relies on things initialized there if I
remember
22 matches
Mail list logo
